Since when is a Republican proposing a budget 172% larger than Clinton's last budget ($1.8T) and 36% larger than Obama's first budget ($3.6T) a radical budget cutter?

Since when is someone (Ron Paul) proposing a budget ($2.6T) still 44% larger than Clinton's last budget ($1.8T) considered a complete nutter?

Quote:

Bill Clinton’s last submitted budget was $1.8 trillion. Barack Obama’s first was $3.6 trillion. We are growing government so fast and so programmatically that the choice between jacking up the federal price tag to either $5.8 trillion (Obama’s preference) or $4.9 trillion (Ryan’s) is being portrayed as the difference between tightening our belts and hacking off our own limbs. No wonder the GOP is afraid to actually cut government: Just slowing down the rate of increase gets you branded as a murderer.

It's about where the cuts are. The military is relatively untouched. The social safety net is gutted.

So we can get to even bigger cuts by also cutting military spending. Good.

Of course all this is moot. Neither party is going to cut anything. In fact the only one who has actually proposed actually cutting anything has been marginalized. We're on a runaway train to national bankruptcy. No one running things now will change that and they will probably all make things worse (perhaps worse slower, perhaps worse faster...but never better).

It's about where the cuts are. The military is relatively untouched in the Ryan plan. The social safety net is gutted.

It is dishonest to call anything growing 100% a cut. Declaring that some items grew 100 or even 125% while other items only grew 75% is also dishonest to label as a cut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So we can get to even bigger cuts by also cutting military spending. Good.

Of course all this is moot. Neither party is going to cut anything. In fact the only one who has actually proposed actually cutting anything has been marginalized. We're on a runaway train to national bankruptcy. No one running things now will change that and they will probably all make things worse (perhaps worse slower, perhaps worse faster...but never better).

Your point is supremely made. Keep plugging away MJ. Since the California primary is so late, I might give Ron Paul a vote just to make sure his ideas gain more strength.

The left does not pronounce that she is the reason they got involved in politics, speak at her birthday celebrations, and force their interns to read her books.

Nor does "the right" I suspect. But you've found one example of such conduct and presume everyone that is similarly labelled (e.g., Republican, conservative or "rightist") does the same. In fact your reasoning is exactly the same as the Hitler drinking water reasoning that you quickly dismiss.

It just seems kinda peculiar to me to hear Republicans screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?" Since when did Republicans expect the federal government to create jobs for them when their view is the federal government is incompetent. Shouldn't they be screaming at Wallstreet for the jobs? They're the one's who create them. Not Washington.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

It just seems kinda peculiar to me to hear Republicans screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?" Since when did Republicans expect the federal government to create jobs for them when their view is the federal government is incompetent. Shouldn't they be screaming at Wallstreet for the jobs? They're the one's who create them. Not Washington.

Well I'm not sure which comments (i.e., screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?") you're referring to, but it is quite likely (duplicity aside) that they are asking mockingly to the Obama administration where are all the jobs that are supposed to be created by his Keynesian stimulus debacle.

You are right that the government doesn't create jobs. Jobs are created by private sector producers out of production efforts (not Wall Street per se).

The government can, of course, create conditions that are better (or worse) for new production to happen (and jobs to be created). I'd argue that this government has created conditions, in the past few years, that inhibit (rather than promote) production and producers (also inhibiting job creation). Some of those actions include creating an uncertain regulatory, tax, fiscal and monetary environment.

There's no doubt that there is much political posturing going on. However, how you got only that from my suggested explanation is somewhat baffling. Again, since you haven't provided any specific references to the alleged screaming it's hard to comment on that. But my point was that someone could be asking (mockingly or sarcastically) "where are the jobs?" and not be seriously asking "why isn't the federal government creating jobs?" and not necessarily be purely political.

Kinda like this:

Let's say you tell me you'll can lose 10 pounds a month by eating only cupcakes and Snicker's bars. I'm skeptical. You proceed. Six months later you're not only not 60 pounds lighter, you're 20-30 pounds heavier and have been diagnosed with diabetes to boot. When I then (mockingly and sarcastically) ask "Where's the weight loss?" I'm not being "political" per se, I'm simply pointing out the foolishness of your assumptions and plan for losing weight (albeit in a mocking and sarcastic fashion.)

It just seems kinda peculiar to me to hear Republicans screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?" Since when did Republicans expect the federal government to create jobs for them when their view is the federal government is incompetent. Shouldn't they be screaming at Wallstreet for the jobs? They're the one's who create them. Not Washington.

Well when you borrow a few trillion during the first term, money that affects the ability of private markets to loan capital to others, or makes lenders less likely to lend when the Fed prints away the bonds they buy, thus driving inflation up. Then you have no choice in the matter and want to at least see a result for all the stolen and looted money. Understand the government stimulus would pay for almost 3 Apple Computer Companies. The amount borrowed over the first term would buy between 10-12 Apple Computers. We clearly haven't felt that result.

If you went to a studio with film proposal and they declared they couldn't fund it because the government had taken their profits with a "family values film" tax and would now credit them the money back as a grant, provided they make the right type of films, you would still expect to see something out of this very government controlled and distorted market.

If on the other hand no government sponsored family friendly films showed up nor did the jobs from creating them, I'm sure you'd scoff at anyone who retorted "You're a filmmaker, why haven't you made the films instead of asking what the hell the government did with all that money and why are you wondering about the results?"

You'd note that the government took money out of the available private pool of money to finance and green light films and that there should be a result from that. You'd note that there was the possibility of fewer private films due to the government intervention and that it is appropriate to ask if the government intervention yielded a results better, worse or the same as the private approach.

Now let us take this a step further. Let us suppose the government applied a "multiplier" effect to their family film grants. They declared they would be able to employ more people and get more films for the same number of dollars that would have been spent on violent and sexually charged films because they have no greedy profit motive, are serving the common good instead of narrow commercial interests and darn it films about puppies and rainbows are just cheaper to make. They declared the same number of dollars would make 15 government films for the cost of 10 commercial films. The government result ends up being 3 badly botched family films with inflated costs and several grants that went to "family friendly" film companies that then immediately went bankrupt.

If you question this result, your motives are impuned. Better still, the government declares the reason their results were so terrible is that they left private money still undertaking certain actions. If they just doubled down or grabbed even more of the available film financing dollars, then they could finally get an appropriate result that was better than the prior terrible result. Their films only cost so much because the entire market is tilted toward producing violent and sexually titilatting film fare. The companies awarded the grants only went bust because they didn't know that several companies would claim the grants but actually didn't know much about making films, they just had the right intentions.

It just seems kinda peculiar to me to hear Republicans screaming at the federal government, "Where are the jobs?" Since when did Republicans expect the federal government to create jobs for them when their view is the federal government is incompetent. Shouldn't they be screaming at Wallstreet for the jobs? They're the one's who create them. Not Washington.

No. Republicans are screaming about the policies that have hindered job growth and the recovery. They are also taking issue with the President's clearly failed policies. President Obama apparently believes his own rhetoric, or seems to. That is to say...raising taxes on the rich, giving taxpayer dollars to green energy companies, massively higher social spending, more regulation on business, hostile attitude towards fossil fuel producers, etc....that all of this will somehow help create vibrant economy. But he's clearly and unquestionably wrong. Thee policies have hindered the economy, not helped it. President Obama is out there doubling down on these policies....and Republicans are asking how that's possible, especially with regards to employment.

Trump:

Quote:

You'd note that the government took money out of the available private pool of money to finance and green light films and that there should be a result from that. You'd note that there was the possibility of fewer private films due to the government intervention and that it is appropriate to ask if the government intervention yielded a results better, worse or the same as the private approach.

I wanted to take this snippet of your post because there are many people in Congress (and here, most likely) that simply do not believe the bolded section above. Obama is one of these people. These are the Nancy Pelosi types---who make claims like "unemployment checks actually create jobs." They actually believe that government spending is not a drain on the economy, but the way to create a healthy economy. The rest of us realize that the public sector--important as it might be--is a net resource drain.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Leftward drift? Seriously? What universe do you fucking live in? Your frame of reference is fucked. Republicans moving right at the speed of light may make it appear that the Dems are moving left...but really, they are just being dragged to the right more slowly.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Leftward drift? Seriously? What universe do you fucking live in? Your frame of reference is fucked. Republicans moving right at the speed of light may make it appear that the Dems are moving left...but really, they are just being dragged to the right more slowly.

It isn't my frame of reference.

Did you read the article? Your quarrel is with the arguments and facts presented there. Did you have some specific counter-arguments to the points made in the article?

Taxes were raised under Reagan more times than they were cut. Your article takes an example of one Democrat working together with Republicans and claims Democrats won't work with Republicans today. I call bullshit. Democrats shifted from wanting single-payer and refusing an individual mandate in Clinton's first term to working with Republicans and adopting their idea on healthcare wholesale. That's a rightward shift, my friend.

Reagan raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Republicans won't even consider raising taxes today. That's a rightward shift of the Republican party, my friend.

Your article is shit. Your frame of reference is messing with your head.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Taxes were raised under Reagan more times than they were cut. Your article takes an example of one Democrat working together with Republicans and claims Democrats won't work with Republicans today. I call bullshit. Democrats shifted from wanting single-payer and refusing an individual mandate in Clinton's first term to working with Republicans and adopting their idea on healthcare wholesale. That's a rightward shift, my friend.

Reagan raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Republicans won't even consider raising taxes today. That's a rightward shift of the Republican party, my friend.

Your article is shit. Your frame of reference is messing with your head.

I love how you're doing this. Some misdirection. Some goal post moving. Some apples and oranges comparison. A dismissal of "one Democrat" (the House majority leader at the time)...actually two prominent Democrats at the time Gephardt and Bradley...all while, in this very thread, you hold up a single Republican as representative of all Republicans, conservatives and right-wingers.

I'm not surprised of course.

For example, you jump to Reagan and imply that Reagan himself was responsible for tax increases while ignoring the Democratically controlled House for both terms and Democratically controlled Senate for about half of his time in office. These wouldn't have anything to do with tax increases I presume.

Of course you ignore minor things like the fact that the D's wanted to lower the top marginal rate to 30% while Obama wants to raise it to 40%.

Additionally, you shift to healthcare when the linked article was speaking on the topic of taxes.

Funny thing is that this argument about the leftward shift could go further. Take deregulation as an example: Some of the early deregulation that Reagan got credit (or blamed) for was actually initiated by the Carter administration.

Taxes were raised under Reagan more times than they were cut. Your article takes an example of one Democrat working together with Republicans and claims Democrats won't work with Republicans today. I call bullshit. Democrats shifted from wanting single-payer and refusing an individual mandate in Clinton's first term to working with Republicans and adopting their idea on healthcare wholesale. That's a rightward shift, my friend.

Reagan raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Republicans won't even consider raising taxes today. That's a rightward shift of the Republican party, my friend.

Your article is shit. Your frame of reference is messing with your head.

You are such a liar. When Ronald Reagan took office, he cut taxes by 23% across the board. Between 1981 and 1986, the top rate went from 70% to 28%. It remained there until after he left office. Yes, he supported certain changes that could be portrayed as "tax increases" (closing loopholes, eliminating various tax shelters, for example). But to claim that Reagan raised taxes more than he cut them is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Now, let's talk about increases today: Republicans won't support them because they are a terrible idea. First, we're still in a period of very slow growth and high unemployment. Raising taxes at a time like this is a bad idea. Reagan did exactly the opposite given a similar situation. Secondly, the increases proposed don't make any fiscal sense. If the "rich" paying the Clinton-era rates again would take a serious chunk out of our deficit, that might be one thing. But that math doesn't work. We're talking about tenths or hundredths of one percent in terms of a revenue/deficit projection difference. Beyond that, Republicans believe (correctly) that our problem is not that we don't tax enough. The problem is we spend too much.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm not a liar--you're just illiterate. I said more times. Please, learn to read before you go off on me with a misplaced rant.

And the lying continues. Raising taxes "more times" is irrelevant when the cuts vastly outweigh the amount of any increase. You wrote this for two reasons: 1) To portray Reagan as more moderate on taxes than he actually was, and 2) To paint the GOP as extreme for not supporting those increases, even though they were supported by Reagan.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

When cuts were taken too far, he backed off and raised taxes...more times than he cut them. That's important. Today, the only taxes Republicans consider raising are on the poor. Fucking hypocrites.

Man, you're really on a lying streak lately. Reagan didn't think that tax cuts had gone too far. Marginal rates were not raised when he "raised taxes." What he did was support closing loopholes, shelters, etc. And it made economic sense to do it. Now it doesn't.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Closing those loopholes count as raising taxes under the current Republican definition. You are the one lying here. Read that motherfucking tax pledge they signed. Closing loopholes without lowering tax rates to go along with it is considered breaking the tax pledge. Go bitch at Grover Norquist, not me. Stop calling me a liar.

Quote:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Closing those loopholes count as raising taxes under the current Republican definition. You are the one lying here. Read that motherfucking tax pledge they signed. Closing loopholes without lowering tax rates to go along with it is considered breaking the tax pledge. Go bitch at Grover Norquist, not me. Stop calling me a liar.

I'm not here to argue whether or not someone should have signed the pledge. What I'm saying is that Republicans on the whole don't support raising taxes because it doesn't make fiscal and economic sense to do it. Also, I still say you're portraying Reagan as someone that actually was in favor of higher taxes so you can beat Republicans over the head with that same portrayal.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No, I'm portraying Reagan as someone who was willing to raise taxes, and did so more time than he lowered them. I'm portraying Reagan as less of a batshit fucking crazy intransigent ideologue that you and the current Republican party are today. You are inferring things I explicitly am not saying nor implying. Stop it. The problem is on YOUR END here.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

No, I'm portraying Reagan as someone who was willing to raise taxes, and did so more time than he lowered them.

Yes, he was willing to raise taxes...after he lowered them dramatically, and for reasons that actually made sense. Pointing out how many times he "raised" taxes is irrelevant to who the man was and what he stood for.

Quote:

I'm portraying Reagan as less of a batshit fucking crazy intransigent ideologue that you and the current Republican party are today. You are inferring things I explicitly am not saying nor implying. Stop it. The problem is on YOUR END here.

And I'm saying it has nothing to do with being purely ideological and partisan. It has to do with what makes sense. The problem here is not loopholes, nor that we don't tax enough. In fact, we're taxed far too much already. The problem is spending.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No, I'm portraying Reagan as someone who was willing to raise taxes, and did so more time than he lowered them. I'm portraying Reagan as less of a batshit fucking crazy intransigent ideologue that you and the current Republican party are today. You are inferring things I explicitly am not saying nor implying. Stop it. The problem is on YOUR END here.

Have you tried complete sentences, devoid of caricature and perhaps only having say one out of every ten words be some sort of expletive or label?